Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 22, 2014 7:00pm-7:31pm PDT

7:00 pm
and i would recommend in the future that they make better efforts to notify and clarify what work is going to be done. in the notice here it says that there is a reference to the work and the amounts that are charged and it's not available anywhere either online or attached to the notice of the hearing today. >> thank you. next speaker. yes, my name is tom [speaker not understood]. my spouse and i live and own 21 79 [speaker not understood] avenue. we actually purchased our house in 1999. when we moved in, we were told that the large chinese elm on the sidewalk was actually maintained by the city of san francisco. a couple years ago the roots on the elm tree actually broke through the sewer pipe that go from our house to the city water system. we figured since the pipe is in our driveway we had to fix it. that cost us $55,000.
7:01 pm
[speaker not understood] any damage from the tree. we did additional research and actually found out that the city of san francisco is not allowing [speaker not understood] these kind of trees due to all the damage caused by its invasive root system. we were not overly surprised when the invasive root system of the tree caused damage to the city sidewalk. we were, however, surprised when we received a notice from the city that we would have to pay for the damage that the tree the city had put in, had agreed to maintain and the city now says should never be put in again due to its invasive root system. imagine if the city had hired someone who had agreed to maintain something it sold to san francisco, and that person then said, we're not doing it any more. i doubt the city would [speaker not understood] on that. or someone causes damage to the city by driving their car through a city door and demanded the city fix it,
7:02 pm
again, i doubt the city would go for that. [speaker not understood] a hearing on this matter at public works. [speaker not understood], discussion unusual because [speaker not understood] kinding i shouldn't have gone to the hearing, which seemed kind of weird. during the hearing, the hearing officer told me that everything was fine until i received [inaudible]. >> thank you very much, sir. thank you very much. you'll have an opportunity to speak to the dpw staffer. sir, everyone who comes to the board chamber, you have two minutes to speak. we'll have to keep that rule with everyone. i appreciate it. thank you. sir, your microphone has been turned off. you'll have an opportunity to speak with the dph staff. next speaker.
7:03 pm
next speaker. thank you very much. my name is jacqueline [speaker not understood], i live in [speaker not understood] bernal heights. [speaker not understood] the sidewalk inspector was carrying out the work in front of my house. i asked what was going on. i was told my sidewalk needed to be repaired. and i was told i had the following choices. the city could do the work and charge me, i could have my own contractor do the work, but i would need to get a permit that would cost $500. i could do the work myself and follow the guidelines from the paperwork i was given. then we discussed what needed to be repaired and i was told the cracks were quarter inch wide or more would need to be filled. my sidewalk was basically in good condition with some small cracks. i would say some of the cracks had been marked were less than a quarter of an inch and i proved it with a ruler. so, now the cracks were wider he, i was told i could do the
7:04 pm
work myself ~. i told them i would and was given a deadline the next week and purchased the materials and completed the job. at a later inspection i was told that none of the work was acceptable. at this point i felt pressured to have the work done by the city's inspectors, but i had also noticed that some of the sidewalks on my block were much worse, in much worse condition and had not been marked at all. this made me question the professionalism of the inspectors. i was also told that the tree outside of my house was buckling the sidewalk and i would be billed for the work by ann arborist. no work was done by ann arborist, but i was billed for that. i was charged and the bill was removed. my total was [speaker not understood]. i was then charged an additional 12% administration fee. there was never mention the total now is 1,22 1.50. i paid 5 49.50 of that.
7:05 pm
i am of a limited income so i have no choice in the matter, was forced into paying the city's contractors to pay something that i was already adequately repaired. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is [speaker not understood]. i live at 1567 42nd avenue. like the speaker before me i saw my sidewalk was being repaired. i moved in 15 days prior to that. it was a little surprising [speaker not understood]. the cost is small. it's a little over $400, but it's more the principle of the pacific loan pool company that actually owned my house, not paying for this. and someone like myself who is on a limited income having to pay for it. so, again, the notice to repay
7:06 pm
to pacific pool on august 16, our closing date was on 10-5. the repair occurred on 11-16-2013. the adjustment had been on november 1st. and i'm asking that this be paid for by pacific loan or for them to be accountable and not us. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is gail mel ton. i live at 225 and 2 27 andover street. [speaker not understood]. they sent us a bill which included two items, which was tree root pruning and tree basin bricks for $590, neither of which was necessary nor which the city did. so, we asked them to remove those two items and we would pay the bill. they said they would send an inspector to make sure our tree did not require the pruning or
7:07 pm
that the backfill had not been done. nobody ever came out, so, we waited for them to come and verify the amount. and the next thing we got was the notice about this hearing. so, we just wanted those item removed and then we'll be happy to pay it, but we don't want to pay the 12% administrative fee as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. my name is rp gordon from [speaker not understood] san francisco 94 11 2. i did not receive the information ~. i would like to not have to pay the administrative fee as well and [speaker not understood] i'd be more than happy to do that and take care of it. thank you. >> next speaker, please. my name is [speaker not understood], last name is maladian.
7:08 pm
i live at 329 contera street in san francisco. sometime in september 2013 i had a major accident. [speaker not understood], crushed my pelvic bones, cut my bladder and everything. i end up in the hospital. after six days i was taken to -- i had to go to a rehab center. and then when i came back after one month the work was done already. but i've noticed the vent was smelling and it was overflowing. so, i called the department and they said they're going to send somebody to check, but they never did. so, i called the water department emergency, they came in. they had to break the vent outside and then they had to put pressure just to open up the cement. it was clogged up.
7:09 pm
but they told me this would happen again so you better call department again. so, i called them a second time after one month and they said, we have your information on the list. we're going to send somebody, but they never did. but from that time until now i have to go ahead with time and press on, push water in there just to unclog this. so, i think they should come and fix their problem. i cannot live with smelly [speaker not understood] sewage. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. supervisor avalos, do you have a comment you want to make? >> i was planning to [speaker not understood], but i just want to make sure that when dpw representative speaks with the community members here, the real common thing i'm hearing is people didn't expect to get administrative fees or some of them didn't get information about what fees are being put
7:10 pm
on. seems to me thats was the concern, that is the case. i want to make sure dpw is responsive to the concerns when they're raised when they meet outside the board chamber. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is john plant. i live in bernal heights at 10 20 cortland avenue. we received a notice that we were going to have some sidewalk repair in front of our house. they showed up in a few days later and started work. we were kind of surprised. they did the work and then a few days later, we notice that there was like an overwhelming amount of [speaker not understood] completed. [speaker not understood], its was nasty and glowtion. we had to call 311. they came out and fixed it. it happened 20 times we had to call 311. there was sewage in our street from the work dpw had done. finally they got a camera down there after 20 times and they found out they had left the [speaker not understood] of
7:11 pm
towels and tools in the pipes. kid kept getting sick. it was gross. it was awful. there was environmental damage. they told us in a written paper we have, that they are at fault for the clogging of the pipes. they did come out and fix it, but like any contractor, i would not pay for such shody work. so, thank you for your consideration. ~ shoddy work. so, thank you for your consideration. [speaker not understood]. i don't speak english very good. i prefer to speak spanish.
7:12 pm
a few months ago you -- i don't know how to say that [speaker not understood]. [speaking through interpreter]
7:13 pm
>> sir, if you'd like to take some time to translate, you're welcome to do that. yes. my name is alex chan. i live with martha menendez at [speaker not understood] excelsior district. we under the program and what was going on. basically i think our issue that the deal or the negotiation with dpw is not what we agreed to. so, i think we'll try to resolve that with the dpw staff members. but we have the documents to kind of justify our argument here. thank you. >> okay, thank you very much. and if you would like us to get a translator, we're happy to do that as well.
7:14 pm
thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, my name is jackie olson and i reside in excelsior district. 700 avalon, and we had received a notice last year that sidewalk repairs were required, which we had completed and paid the contractor to do. now we received a notice saying that there's a public hearing that we're going to do the work. the inspector told us they would be back to inspect the work we had completed. we never heard from anybody and don't know why we're receiving this notice. so, i would appreciate some help. thank you. >> [speaker not understood]. you can share that with dpw officer, of your case today. okay, thank you. >> thank you.
7:15 pm
next speaker. good afternoon, board. like to take a minute to thank the board for the recent support of the new urban agricultural rezoning ordinance -- >> excuse me, sir. this is on the hearing that we have. i'm here on the matter -- the [speaker not understood] tenant representing my land lady claudia orient height, thank you. i'm the master tenant at [speaker not understood] vienna street. and 7 months ago the neighborhood was told to make repairs, sidewalk repairs and tree trimming. my land lady decided to have the city contractors come and do repair work at the -- at our house. we're charged for work that wasn't done. we don't have a tree, not had a tree on our sidewalk for god knows how many years. we were charged for root
7:16 pm
removal work. so, i'd appreciate the board's help with that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. hello, my name is [speaker not understood] r and i live at 1 108 [speaker not understood] avenue. we received notice that i have to repair the sidewalk. i started to contract a company. i was already in contact with the company to do the work and two days prior the company from the city hall come over and did the work. the company before was going to charge me $3,000 and now i'm receiving a bill for $7,000 from the city hall. i don't know why a professional company with permits from city hall would charge less than city hall is [speaker not understood]. they left all my plans. i called the supervisor three times. the third time they're saying
7:17 pm
the person to remove it, but they didn't remove it completely. they said they will come back and never came back. what they did, they have a [speaker not understood] already. while they were doing the work, they were so damaged by the sidewalk and they did repair it. i called the supervisor as well and let them know. another thing, when they told me they were [speaker not understood], they were not on the way. i asked what was going to be charged, and they said no, especially for me because i want to make sure that no extra charge were coming over. examine now they are charging me more than a thousand dollars for that work. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in this hearing? seeing none at this time, what i'd like to do is request mr. kwan from dpw staff if you want to stand up so everyone can see who you are and for all members of the public that wish to
7:18 pm
speak with him and bring your situation to his attention, if you could please follow him outside of the board chamber, probably in about half an hour, 45 minutes, he will let us know whether these issues have been resolved and we will go from there. thank you very much. colleagues, while waiting for folks to walk out, i understand that supervisor wiener -- supervisor wiener, you want to rescind item 8. okay, supervisor wiener would like to rescind item 8. could i have a second to that motion? second by supervisor mar, without objection. that item will be rescinded. [gavel] >> and supervisor wiener. >> i thank you, mr. president. i'd like to move to continue the item to july 8th. >> okay. so rather than the 15th which is what we >> no. erctionvly voted on if we can move it to the eighth, seconded by supervisor kim, colleague, can we take that motion to continue without objection? that shall be the case. [gavel] >> and with that why don't we now go to our first 3:00 p.m. special order. madam clerk, could you call the
7:19 pm
items related to the sfmta to your capital and operating budgets appeal. >> items 29 through 32 comprise the special order of 3:00 p.m. for public hearing of persons interested in the san francisco municipal transportation agency's determination that the sfmta fiscal year 2015 through 16 two-year operating and capital budget is statutorily exempt from the california environmental quality act. item 30 is the motion affirming the mta's determination. item 23 p1 is a motion reversing the determination by the sfmta. item 32 is a motion to direct the appropriation of findingsed in the reversal of the determination. ~ item 31 >> colleagues, before us we have the appeal of the environmental review exemption from the sfmta agency's fy 2015-2016 two-year capital budget. for this hearing we will consider the accuracy of the sfmta's determination that this
7:20 pm
project is statutorily exempt from environmental review. because this is a statutory exemption we were required not to look at whether the activity affectses in to the environment, as to categorical exemption, but whether it meets the exemption that is used. we'll hear from the appellants who will describe the grounds for the appeal. we will then hear public comment from individuals speaking on behalf of the appellants. each speaker will have up to two minutes. we'll then hear from the sfmta and the planning department who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their determination that this project is exempt from environmental review. we'll then hear from individuals speaking on behalf of the project sponsor and each member of the public will have up to two minutes to present. finally the appellant will have up to three minutes for arguments and rebuttal. why don't we proceed to the appellants. >> good morning, mr. president, supervisors.
7:21 pm
my name is [speaker not understood], transit riders system and [speaker not understood]. thank you for hearing our appeal. i know that c-e-q-a issues are not always a favorite and that transit decision are always difficult, but i hope i can enlighten you as to some of the factors and reasons why we brought this appeal and why the decision to be overturned. i'll be brief in my comments. before i continue i would like hand out to the board of supervisors appeal letters of support that recently we received from the league of pissed off voters and also on behalf of walk san francisco. the third item here is a letter that [speaker not understood], the third item is a letter i sent to the board of supervisors yesterday just so you have a copy a a courtesy. i'd like to touch on three items. i did a little background on why this is important. i'll focus on the california
7:22 pm
community act or c-e-q-a, then a few comments before my colleague talks. this is an interesting case, i'll tell you why. because the san francisco mta decided to enforce sunday metered parking a year ago and it found that that practice was doing nothing but good things for the city. and then drivers started grumbling, which is no surprise. the mta decided to reverse its decision and stop metered parking on sunday. [speaker not understood] 2013 mta produced [speaker not understood] all the benefits of muni parking on sundays. so, the sue is and why appellants are bringing this appeal, why does the mta produce a study in december, [speaker not understood], why did not they not reference or
7:23 pm
seek out that decision at all? [speaker not understood]. that considering the study is not an informed decision. briefly i want to talk about the impact before going to c-e-q-a because they're not in dispute here. it's very clear that the impacts of this decision to reverse metered parking on sunday will reduce revenue by where there is approximately, i understand it, $11 million. we know that, it's not in dispute. it is also clear there will be negative impacts to the city. it will increase traffic congestion on sundays, everything that comes with that. greenhouse gases, pedestrian safety will be impacted. why is that not in dispute? the stud any 2013 actually finds that. that study, by the way, is on page [speaker not understood] of the record before you. i'd like to turn to c-e-q-a now. so, what's happening here in light of this decision go the direction it d. according to mta the decision to reverse meter parking on sundays is
7:24 pm
exempt from c-e-q-a. there is clearly an exemption [speaker not understood], but that doesn't apply here and let me tell you why. there's two reasons. the first reason is the fares and rates exemption under c-e-q-a, only applies to decisions designed to meet operating expenses. this decision knows revenue. the bottom line of c-e-q-a is [speaker not understood] in the past they had to take actions because they had to meet operating expenses. therefore, the c-e-q-a exemption should not apply. the second reason which is even more clear-cut in my eyes, the agency specifically notes the basis for the exemption, what happens here is the agency pointed the public in the wrong direction. if you look at their exemption and the resolution that they passed they actually say it applies specifically to a number of items and what is
7:25 pm
referred to as attachment a. attachment a does not discuss the [speaker not understood] metered parking on sundays. and if that does president convince you that it doesn't comply with the statute, then if that's not enough, look at my letter on exhibit a where you see mta did in 2012. when mta passed this resolution to start metered enforcement on sundays, they specifically said and quoted this exemption includes sunday metered -- with sunday meter parking metered enforcement, excuse me. so, that should leave some questions, board of supervisors. 2012 you had an exemption that coffers sunday metered parking. why is that? maybe that's the sort of thing that would lead the [speaker not understood] with the impression [speaker not understood] avoid looking at the december 2013 study.
7:26 pm
the other thing, and a few final comments here. the other thing the board i think should be aware of, why does this matter? is this just a c-e-q-a technicality? no, it's not. the mta is very clear about ha they're eting. members of the public can look at that and they can say wait a second, i don't think this is right ~. you should look at the december 2013 study. the mta board has to look at it and vote in favor of exempting this particular action to stop sunday meter parking. [speaker not understood] through that process then take over, perhaps look at this more closely and come to an opposite conclusion. in closing, what i'd like to say is the only possible way that you can read from a legal standpoint that you could read this c-e-q-a exemption as applied, as the standard applies to the entire budget, and that's what happened here. mta looked at this decision. i assume someone looked at it and said it doesn't specifically say exempt sunday metered parking.
7:27 pm
and it actually lowers revenue so they're only able [speaker not understood] c-e-q-a applies if we include it as a global exemption of the entire budget. that's not what the exemption was designed for. as most of you know, c-e-q-as was intended to be interpreted [speaker not understood], it was intended to be in favor of the public and gem enfull public disclosure of what is going on. so, with that i'm going to pass it on to my colleagues. thank you for your time and attention. >> mr. president? >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i just have some questions. so, thank you for the presentation and i appreciate the advocacy that's gone on around this and many other transit issues. i have enormous respect for the appellants in this case. i work with them all regularly on our joint quest to adequately fund public transportation system and have smart transportation as a policy in san francisco, which is sometimes a challenge. but as you know and as you stated, this is a c-e-q-a
7:28 pm
appeal and there are times when c-e-q-a appeals come to this board and arguments are made on the merits or people think it's about the merits of the issue, sunday meter good or is it bad. of course that is not the issue before the board. the voters in 1999 took that power away from the board of supervisors and gave it to the mta board of directors and, so, that question about the merits of sunday meters is in the hands of the mta board of directors and we all can agree or disagree with the decisions that they make. so, i think it's really important just to emphasize that for the public. and, so, my question for you is what is the correct level of c-e-q-a review or c-e-q-a documents for this decision by the mta board of directors to eliminate sunday meters? what are you contending they should have done instead of issue the statutory exemption? >> well, at the very least they should have done what they did in 2012 which is identify specifically that the c-e-q-a
7:29 pm
exemption was applied to sunday meter parking. >> have they put that -- was it an attachment a as it's called? did they put those three or four words on there, eliminate sunday meter enforcement, i guess that's four words, put that on attachment a, are you saying we wouldn't be here today? you would be satisfied with the c-e-q-a? >> no. there are two legal reasons why this appeal stands. that's one of them. the second reason is because the c-e-q-a exemption was designed for actions that help the operating expenses and are required to meet the budget. so, because this action lowers revenues, it's not necessary and the c-e-q-a [speaker not understood] -- >> that gets back to my original question, which is what -- what is the c-e-q-a level of analysis or what was the c-e-q-a document that the mta should have issued if not this exemption, what are you arguing for?
7:30 pm
>> they should have said in their exemption, it specifically applies, and provide evidence for why the decision to stop enforcing metered parking on sundays helped meet operating expenses. >> what -- should it have been an e-i-r, negative declaration, [speaker not understood], what are you arguing they should have issued, what kind of document? >> i'm not argument that they couldn't have somehow done this within their resolution in the documents that they provided. that would depend on what they find and what the substantial evidence was provided there. but they would have had to make a decision. they would have had to look at what was being done and explained the rationale for doing so. >> i think whatever was listed in the attachment, for example, they made a decision which one can agree with or disagree with. you're saying the statutory exemption could apply? >> if they had made the correct findings and they had correctly identified what it was applying to. >> and would you